* Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > With the barrier in there, is there any reason to *not* inline the > function? barrier_data() is an asm statement that tells the compiler > that the asm uses the memory that was set to zero, thus preventing it > from removing the memset even if nothing else uses that memory later. A > more detailed comment is there in compiler-gcc.h. I can't see why it > wouldn't work even if it were inlined. > > If the function can indeed be inlined, we could just make the common > implementation a macro and avoid duplicating it? As mentioned in another > mail, we otherwise will likely need another duplicate implementation for > arch/s390/purgatory as well. I suspect macro would be justified in this case. Mind sending a v3 patch to demonstrate how it would all look like? I'll zap v2 if the macro solution looks better. Thanks, Ingo
